If You are invovled with Social SErvices in the courts this communication progam can help you work together in an entirely new way
The Court Process creates a Conflict Frame between you and your ex-partner. This means that instead of speaking directly to each other, you are speaking through social services, solicitors, and the courts. Furthermore the hidden positive aspects of your previous relationship, the kind thoughts you have for each other, the care you may still feel despite the breakdown of your relationship, may be hidden - and is certainly not likely to be expressed.
When neither of you feel safe, there is no trust, and then you may find yourself dealing with your worst enemy.
Since in a Conflict Frame the aim is to "win" and make the other person "loose," you are encouraged to attack your partner and make them look bad. Instead of talking to a real person you wind up talking about an image of your partner presented to social services. And that is not a real relationship.
Either you live your life or other people will live it for you.
By entering into this process with social services you inadvertently hand over all your power. The Conflictory System aims to set you against each other, with very well intentioned and often kind lawyers and solicitors giving you advice aimed at making you feel more secure. But as the System itself is very destructive you wind up hurting your ex-partner, and this also displays a damaged relationship to your children, of two people who may in fact instead of coming closer through this process, become estranged, each one blaming the other more and more, until the only agreements which are made are by the order of a judge.
But there is another way. You can enter into a process I have created especially for you which creates an Agreement Frame. This process is designed to empower both you and your partner to establish a genuine, kind, positive way of working together where you both feel empowered, and together direct what happens with social services and the court.
Andy and Cara had both taken out police notices on one another. By the time I saw them they were only speaking through solicitors. Andy had not seen his children in a month. The judge unusually ordered them to have a communication session, and Andy came to me for help.
I told them I had created a process which would intorduce a whole new mindset for dealing with their situaiton. I also told them this process needed to superscede every other process they were at that time going through.
If they were to break free of the destructive cycle they had been in for the past two months they needed to step outside of the Conflict Frame they were living, and with my assistance they could create an Agreement Frame, where they could get far more than they ever could imagine any other way.
So that this process was an an adjunct of what was happening with social services or in court I set out one of the stipulations of this process was that nothing in their communication session could be repeated to social services nor anyone without their joint permission, and anything which was said could only be positive. The aim of this session, I informed them, was to help them take back their power, communicate directly with each other, in a process which was positive, mutual, kind and generous.
Andy could only see his children at that time by persmission of the court - as Cara had accused him of taking drugs. Andy had accused Cara of taking drugs and so immediately after our session the judge had ordered she should have a drugs test using her hair - which could determine any drug use for the last six months. Andy had had his test and come up clean. Cara had also told me privately that she felt Andy had had it in him to become a better father - and I agreed, that through this process and now he was very likely to be on his best behaviour - and I knew he loves his children.
This was how Cara really felt about Andy, which was in no way reflected to social servives nor in the court process. It was, like I said, two people dealing with the images they had presented to social services, rather than who they really are.
This process is designed to help people relate to each other as who they truly are and not to images they create of each other to defend themselves in an adversarial system. When Andy and Cara did this in the session, things began to shift. Andy, who had kept the family dog from his estranged wife and their children, agreed to bring the dog back that very night. Cara agreed that Andy should see his children the very next day.
As promised, they had achieved more through this process than in any other way. Furthermore Andy told me the next day that he was contacting social services to "disarm them." And he was going to do the same with the police and in his communication to the court. He was going to inform them, as I had suggested, that now he and Cara were working together in a positive and constructive way; and through thier agreement and working together they also lead their friends and extended families - who had become polarized against each partner - towards coming together in a kinder more positive way lead by their example. If Cara and Andy were working together there was no need for the hatred and negative defensive advice of all the legal experts, friends, and family. Furthmore, Andy and Cara would communicate what was happening and take control of their own lives back again.
This did not mean they were together as a couple, but it does mean they have a very real and constructive relationship - which they are putting first and is paramount in this process, based upon an relationship model which has at its heart an agreement frame, by which they are achieving - as I promised them - far more than they ever could through any other method.
As promised, they had achieved more through this process than in any other way. Furthermore Andy told me the next day that he was contacting social services to "disarm them." And he was going to do the same with the police and in his communication to the court. He was going to inform them, as I had suggested, that now he and Cara were working together in a positive and constructive way; and through thier agreement and working together they also lead their friends and extended families - who had become polarized against each partner - towards coming together in a kinder more positive way lead by their example. If Cara and Andy were working together there was no need for the hatred and negative defensive advice of all the legal experts, friends, and family. Furthmore, Andy and Cara would communicate what was happening and take control of their own lives back again.
This did not mean they were together as a couple, but it does mean they have a very real and constructive relationship - which they are putting first and is paramount in this process, based upon an relationship model which has at its heart an agreement frame, by which they are achieving - as I promised them - far more than they ever could through any other method.
Cara and Andy both had wobbles. They were both afraid that the other would use this process to manipulate and exploit the other. They had to be coached to be congruent with this process and act with good faith instead of fear – which they had been acting out of.
When they acted congruently and kept their word with each other, this created Safety for each other. When they had genuine Safety, they could act out of Trust, and with Trust came the intimacy of a genuine relationship. I do not mean a romantic relationship. I mean a relationship where two people meet one another as they truly are, with generousity, positivity and kindness, going first in good faith – and with each small step they took, they are in the process of creating new positive changes which is good for them, good for each other, good for their children, and good for their extended families.
Whole families who are estranged can be re-uinted by the core actions of ex-couples who work together in this way.
This is called leading by reality. The reality Cara and Andy themselves created and are continuing to create.
This meant they did not take the course of years of being in court, with social services involvement, with solicitors and friends and family giving them well-intentioned but ultimately destructive advice based on a conflict frame. It would also save them a huge amount of money. Not to mention the inner stress and conflict they themselves would have carried potentially for years and perhaps for the rest of their lives.
If you are in a similar position and would like to work with your ex-partner in a whole new way, please call 0800 024 8647 and speak to John today.
to make yourself supposedly feel secure and achieve some of your aims - which may be contact with your children.
When neither of you feel safe, there is no trust, and then you may find yourself dealing with your worst enemy.
Since in a Conflict Frame the aim is to "win" and make the other person "loose," you are encouraged to attack your partner and make them look bad. Instead of talking to a real person you wind up talking about an image of your partner presented to social services. And that is not a real relationship.
Either you live your life or other people will live it for you.
By entering into this process with social services you inadvertently hand over all your power. The Conflictory System aims to set you against each other, with very well intentioned and often kind lawyers and solicitors giving you advice aimed at making you feel more secure. But as the System itself is very destructive you wind up hurting your ex-partner, and this also displays a damaged relationship to your children, of two people who may in fact instead of coming closer through this process, become estranged, each one blaming the other more and more, until the only agreements which are made are by the order of a judge.
But there is another way. You can enter into a process I have created especially for you which creates an Agreement Frame. This process is designed to empower both you and your partner to establish a genuine, kind, positive way of working together where you both feel empowered, and together direct what happens with social services and the court.
Andy and Cara had both taken out police notices on one another. By the time I saw them they were only speaking through solicitors. Andy had not seen his children in a month. The judge unusually ordered them to have a communication session, and Andy came to me for help.
I told them I had created a process which would intorduce a whole new mindset for dealing with their situaiton. I also told them this process needed to superscede every other process they were at that time going through.
If they were to break free of the destructive cycle they had been in for the past two months they needed to step outside of the Conflict Frame they were living, and with my assistance they could create an Agreement Frame, where they could get far more than they ever could imagine any other way.
So that this process was an an adjunct of what was happening with social services or in court I set out one of the stipulations of this process was that nothing in their communication session could be repeated to social services nor anyone without their joint permission, and anything which was said could only be positive. The aim of this session, I informed them, was to help them take back their power, communicate directly with each other, in a process which was positive, mutual, kind and generous.
Andy could only see his children at that time by persmission of the court - as Cara had accused him of taking drugs. Andy had accused Cara of taking drugs and so immediately after our session the judge had ordered she should have a drugs test using her hair - which could determine any drug use for the last six months. Andy had had his test and come up clean. Cara had also told me privately that she felt Andy had had it in him to become a better father - and I agreed, that through this process and now he was very likely to be on his best behaviour - and I knew he loves his children.
This was how Cara really felt about Andy, which was in no way reflected to social servives nor in the court process. It was, like I said, two people dealing with the images they had presented to social services, rather than who they really are.
This process is designed to help people relate to each other as who they truly are and not to images they create of each other to defend themselves in an adversarial system. When Andy and Cara did this in the session, things began to shift. Andy, who had kept the family dog from his estranged wife and their children, agreed to bring the dog back that very night. Cara agreed that Andy should see his children the very next day.
As promised, they had achieved more through this process than in any other way. Furthermore Andy told me the next day that he was contacting social services to "disarm them." And he was going to do the same with the police and in his communication to the court. He was going to inform them, as I had suggested, that now he and Cara were working together in a positive and constructive way; and through thier agreement and working together they also lead their friends and extended families - who had become polarized against each partner - towards coming together in a kinder more positive way lead by their example. If Cara and Andy were working together there was no need for the hatred and negative defensive advice of all the legal experts, friends, and family. Furthmore, Andy and Cara would communicate what was happening and take control of their own lives back again.
This did not mean they were together as a couple, but it does mean they have a very real and constructive relationship - which they are putting first and is paramount in this process, based upon an relationship model which has at its heart an agreement frame, by which they are achieving - as I promised them - far more than they ever could through any other method.
As promised, they had achieved more through this process than in any other way. Furthermore Andy told me the next day that he was contacting social services to "disarm them." And he was going to do the same with the police and in his communication to the court. He was going to inform them, as I had suggested, that now he and Cara were working together in a positive and constructive way; and through thier agreement and working together they also lead their friends and extended families - who had become polarized against each partner - towards coming together in a kinder more positive way lead by their example. If Cara and Andy were working together there was no need for the hatred and negative defensive advice of all the legal experts, friends, and family. Furthmore, Andy and Cara would communicate what was happening and take control of their own lives back again.
This did not mean they were together as a couple, but it does mean they have a very real and constructive relationship - which they are putting first and is paramount in this process, based upon an relationship model which has at its heart an agreement frame, by which they are achieving - as I promised them - far more than they ever could through any other method.
Cara and Andy both had wobbles. They were both afraid that the other would use this process to manipulate and exploit the other. They had to be coached to be congruent with this process and act with good faith instead of fear – which they had been acting out of.
When they acted congruently and kept their word with each other, this created Safety for each other. When they had genuine Safety, they could act out of Trust, and with Trust came the intimacy of a genuine relationship. I do not mean a romantic relationship. I mean a relationship where two people meet one another as they truly are, with generousity, positivity and kindness, going first in good faith – and with each small step they took, they are in the process of creating new positive changes which is good for them, good for each other, good for their children, and good for their extended families.
Whole families who are estranged can be re-uinted by the core actions of ex-couples who work together in this way.
This is called leading by reality. The reality Cara and Andy themselves created and are continuing to create.
This meant they did not take the course of years of being in court, with social services involvement, with solicitors and friends and family giving them well-intentioned but ultimately destructive advice based on a conflict frame. It would also save them a huge amount of money. Not to mention the inner stress and conflict they themselves would have carried potentially for years and perhaps for the rest of their lives.
If you are in a similar position and would like to work with your ex-partner in a whole new way, please call 0800 024 8647 and speak to John today.
to make yourself supposedly feel secure and achieve some of your aims - which may be contact with your children.
